The Queens Village Republican Club, the country's oldest Republican club, invited me to participate in a three-professor panel about higher education reform. The chair of the club, Phil Orenstein, is an old friend. The meeting was on January 2, 2020. There were about 100 members in the audience--an enthusiastic group of strong Trump supporters--an oasis in the authoritarian wasteland that was New York City. Phil told me that the club has about 200 dues-paying members. The talk went well, and I made many new friends.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Sunday, December 9, 2018
It Is Time to Force a First Amendment Debate on the Democrats
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have discovered in recent weeks that the left wing of the Democratic Party increasingly opposes the First Amendment. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute reports a 2017 survey that finds that, while 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has tended to cause Americans to silence important discussions, opinion is split along party lines: 52% of Democrats favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
The survey also finds that 65% of Americans believe that students who prevent speakers from speaking at universities should be disciplined and that 72% of Republicans and 60% of independents oppose government restrictions on the First Amendment.
It will be fruitful for Republicans to force a debate on the First Amendment, which will expose the increasing authoritarianism and extremism of the Democratic Party. Political correctness can be a wedge issue that pushes increasing support to Republicans, who are more mainstream on this issue.
For example, Republicans might propose a bill that withholds funding to universities that do not discipline students who disrupt public discussions, or they might propose one that ties federal funding of private universities to their complying with the First Amendment in personnel decision making. Perhaps funding could be withheld from universities whose faculty members advocate abrogating the First Amendment. Then, we might enjoy watching the Democrats complain that the bill violates the same First Amendment that they and their left-wing core wish to abrogate.
Respectfully,
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have discovered in recent weeks that the left wing of the Democratic Party increasingly opposes the First Amendment. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute reports a 2017 survey that finds that, while 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has tended to cause Americans to silence important discussions, opinion is split along party lines: 52% of Democrats favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
The survey also finds that 65% of Americans believe that students who prevent speakers from speaking at universities should be disciplined and that 72% of Republicans and 60% of independents oppose government restrictions on the First Amendment.
It will be fruitful for Republicans to force a debate on the First Amendment, which will expose the increasing authoritarianism and extremism of the Democratic Party. Political correctness can be a wedge issue that pushes increasing support to Republicans, who are more mainstream on this issue.
For example, Republicans might propose a bill that withholds funding to universities that do not discipline students who disrupt public discussions, or they might propose one that ties federal funding of private universities to their complying with the First Amendment in personnel decision making. Perhaps funding could be withheld from universities whose faculty members advocate abrogating the First Amendment. Then, we might enjoy watching the Democrats complain that the bill violates the same First Amendment that they and their left-wing core wish to abrogate.
Respectfully,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Russell Senate Office Building
317 Delaware Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20510
Friday, September 7, 2018
Republicans Need to Start Asking Questions about Higher Ed
Martin Knight of the RedState
Blog proposes that Republican state legislators should probe the hiring practices, curriculum,
faculty, and extra-curricular programs of colleges that receive public
funds. I agree.
Knight is right that institutions
of higher learning will frame an attempt to deflect this effort in the language of academic freedom. However such
institutions have not objected to and have enthusiastically supported Democratic
Party attacks on academic freedom, especially associated with Title IX.
Conservative monitoring of left wing subversion of universities has a long history. Prior to the 1950s elected officials routinely intervened in the politically extremist, intolerant tendencies of higher education. McCarthyism went overboard, and the result
was a subsequent reluctance by conservatives to question the ideology posing as research
and the junk social science that has evolved in universities since the
1960s. The aim should not be the silencing of leftists but rather ensuring that their views do not dominate discourse.
With the lifting of the right wing intolerance in the 1960s, equally or more intolerant left wing academics such as Herbert Marcuse began to advocate a McCarthyism of the left. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 offered a set of tools to left-wing extremists because, indeed, it prohibits certain, albeit limited, forms of speech. The task for the left was to expand the scope of the Civil Rights Act to incorporate any and all speech under the strictures of the Civil Rights Act. The right should have been quick to draw the line on limitations on speech, research, and hiring. Instead, Republican officials dropped the ball, leaving the field to leftists.
The result of conservative reluctance to manage badly run universities is documented in
books like Lee Jussim et al.’s Politics
of Social Psychology and George
Yancey’s Compromising
Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education.
As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt show in
their recently published Coddling
of the American Mind , excessive coddling of youngsters led to further attempts to
prevent speech with which the left disagrees.
The end result is a university that is more intolerant than was McCarthyism. As well, universities
have discriminated against conservatives and harmed more conservative careers
by an order of magnitude than McCarthyism harmed left-wing careers.
The
concept of academic freedom is ideologically rooted and is a left-wing
pretense. To most academics, McCarthyism is unfair because it silences leftists, but political correctness is fair because it silences libertarians and conservatives.
Republican officials need to reconsider the
place of the university in American life and the harm done by indoctrination in
both K-12 and higher education. I have in the past proposed rationalization of hiring practices using validation and orthodox human resource management methods, but the publications in the higher education field have refused to publish such ideas.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Ulster County, NY Vote Stronger for Trump Than for Romney
A comparison of the vote counts for Ulster County, NY (h/t Glenda R. McGee) reveals something interesting: The vote for Clinton was weaker than for Obama while the vote for Trump was stronger than for Romney.
Ulster County is a mixture of two elements: rural New Yorkers whose ancestors have lived in the region for generations and are chiefly Republican and transplanted New York City refugees like me. The New York City refugees are mostly Democratic.
Clinton stimulated less interest among the New York City element than Obama had while Trump stimulated more than Romney had. However, the numbers in the region are now overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats because of the demographic shifts.
2012 Ulster County Presidential Votes:
Ulster County is a mixture of two elements: rural New Yorkers whose ancestors have lived in the region for generations and are chiefly Republican and transplanted New York City refugees like me. The New York City refugees are mostly Democratic.
Clinton stimulated less interest among the New York City element than Obama had while Trump stimulated more than Romney had. However, the numbers in the region are now overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats because of the demographic shifts.
2012 Ulster County Presidential Votes:
Obama
Romney
2012: 47,752
29,759
Clinton
Trump
2016 44,597
35,239
Source: Glenda R. McGee
Source: Glenda R. McGee
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
The Republican Congress Is Allowing the Democratic Media to Set Its Agenda
The Republican Congress is allowing the Democratic media to set its agenda.The investigations and accusations are ongoing but going nowhere. They need to stop. In 2014 Andrew Cuomo dissolved a Moreland Act commission that was investigating his administration. In New York the Moreland Act establishes a procedure for the governor to appoint investigative commissions. None of the media that is now so agitated about Trump's interference in the Russian investigation called for Cuomo's impeachment.
The 20th century media, the Democratic TV and radio stations, have proven themselves incapable of reporting news coherently, so it is time for the Congress to assert its legitimate authority and to tell the media that they cannot assert an agenda for the nation. The media was not elected to do this, yet the Republicans seem confused about that.
Congress can use bloggers and social media to communicate with the public. Television, radio, and the Democratic newspapers have increasingly become irrelevant. The Republicans made fools of themselves in the late 1990s when they impeached Clinton, and now they are making even bigger fools of themselves. They control both houses and the presidency, but they are allowing media Democrats to dictate their agenda and focus on investigation of a Republican president. It is time that this circus ended.
The 20th century media, the Democratic TV and radio stations, have proven themselves incapable of reporting news coherently, so it is time for the Congress to assert its legitimate authority and to tell the media that they cannot assert an agenda for the nation. The media was not elected to do this, yet the Republicans seem confused about that.
Congress can use bloggers and social media to communicate with the public. Television, radio, and the Democratic newspapers have increasingly become irrelevant. The Republicans made fools of themselves in the late 1990s when they impeached Clinton, and now they are making even bigger fools of themselves. They control both houses and the presidency, but they are allowing media Democrats to dictate their agenda and focus on investigation of a Republican president. It is time that this circus ended.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Happy Easter--Enjoy the Coming Economic Collapse
Notice that most of the inflationary peaks are around wars. There's a peak following the War of 1812, a peak right at the end of the Civil War, a peak around 1920, following World War I, and then an upswing that starts around 1940 and doesn't abate. Around 1970 (the gold standard was abolished in 1971) the inflation rate surges. It surged at a faster rate in the 1970s than during 1980 to 2010, which is probably why many Americans believed that inflation had ended in the 1980s, which it had not. It just began increasing at a decreasing rate instead of an increasing rate.
Compare the deflation that occurred after the post-Civil War peak with the deflation that occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s. During the Gilded Age, from 1865 to 1910, the deflation was proportionately greater than in the period from 1930 to 1940 (notice that the twenties, which are usually considered a boom period, also saw some deflation). The Gilded Age was the period of greatest rates of innovation, expansion and immigration. Fundamental inventions like the telephone, the railroad (actually pre-Civil War but largely developed post-Civil War), the automobile, radio, A/C electricity, movies, all were created in that period. As well, there was across the board innovation in processes and methods to a far greater degree than today, despite the lip service paid to total quality management and reengineering. Moreover, on a proportional basis there was heavy immigration, a few years reaching as high as 500,000 on a base of less than 90 million.
Yet the rapid progress occurred during the largest deflation in American history. The deflation during the 1930s was much milder, yet the employment effects far more severe. Yet, academic economists base their arguments on the grievous harm that deflation causes.
Here is the reason. In the Gilded Age businessmen and Wall Street complained endlessly. The deflation created political instability because real estate investors and farmers who were anticipating real estate profits suffered losses. But the skimpy profits led to intensification of competition. Reducing labor costs was hardly sufficient to compete. This led to innovation.
Wall Street, the real estate investors, farmers and businesses complained about the deflation, but the average American was better off. There was an election that emphasized this issue in 1896, and the pro-gold (but pro-tariff) McKinley defeated the pro-silver Bryan. Despite this victory, within seventeen years in 1913, the year of JP Morgan's death, Woodrow Wilson established the Fed, which was modeled after a recommendation that Morgan's associates had previously devised.
The depression of the 1930s was accompanied by a rapid expansion of the state and by continued missteps in monetary policy (especially in the late 1930s by Mariner Eccles, the Fed chairman, who caused a second stock market collapse). The crash of 1929 was a second leg to the correction of the 1920 inflation that the Fed had caused. The unemployment was intensified by federal policy. For instance, Herbert Hoover, the last Progressive president, "jaw boned" corporations into not cutting wages. This forced a much higher layoff rate than would have otherwise occurred (see Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh's New History of Leviathan for information about Hoover's role and Hoover's long standing commitment to price fixing and cartelization). Following Hoover's loss to FDR, the nation embarked on a long term socialization policy that integrated Hoover's Progressive ideas (public works and cartelization via FDR's failed National Industrial Recovery Act) as well as additional ideas that the New Deal Democrats added--regulation of wages via the Fair Labor Standards Act; Social Security; the National Labor Relations Act; and price fixing for agriculture, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to grow. As well, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, enacted in 1930, raised tariffs to the highest levels at any time in US history save in 1828.
The period of inflation from 1940 to today has been the worst in American history for the average worker. The claim that deflation during the 1930s caused the massive unemployment is contradicted by the fact that a larger deflation in the late nineteenth century was not accompanied by such severe unemployment.
In other words, the Democrats used the failure of their policies to justify intensification of their policies. They are doing it again with health care.
Happy Easter!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Partisanship and the Politics of Failure
Partisanship has replaced patriotism. On the one hand, we have Democrats who are loyal to the collectivist dream, to the vision of Swedish and German national socialism. As well, the Democrats consider it necessary to put the economic needs of Paul Pelosi, George Soros and the Service Employees International Union before American freedom. On the other hand, the Republicans thought up the bailout and have been scrupulously loyal to the needs of the pharmaceutical industry.
Neither party has pursued policies that would maximize America's well being. These are cutting by two thirds the book of regulation, the tax burden and the size of government.
The media, which is on Wall Street's payroll, have painted American politics as a partisan contest instead of a partisan collaboration. On the one side, MSNBC claims that Obama is America's savior. On the other side, Rush Limbaugh claims that the GOP is. The Democrats advocate national socialism while the Republicans advocate national socialism without welfare programs. There is much overlap, especially because the GOP has never seen a Democratic welfare program that they wanted to repeal. That is, the difference in advocacy is not matched by different action. Both parties advocate big government.
The media's emphasis on partisanship is one more in a long line of distraction tactics, a three card Monty trick. It is one more way that Wall Street's lackeys help divert Americans from the current system's failure.
To the extent that Americans have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the scam, they have suffered. The real hourly wage now is the same as it was in 1971. Forty years of stagnation thanks to the Socialists of Both Parties.
Somehow, neither Limbaugh nor MSNBC managed to "just say 'No!'" to Federal Reserve monetary policies that transfer large amounts of wealth to Wall Street and the recent trillion dollar bailout of the same Street. Put together, the monetary subsidies to the money center banking system serve no productive economic purpose unless you wish to claim that the money center financial institutions have been adept at choosing innovative investments to spur the American economy. But if you claim that you need to explain why they need multi-trillion dollar bailouts.
No industry has failed more dramatically, has demonstrated less competence, has proven itself less capable of serving any socially redeeming function than the money center banking institutions that have received trillions of dollars in subsidies. This is not an emotional assessment. No industry in history has ever depended on life support to that degree, has more egregiously sucked assets out of the productive sector of any economy than has the money center banking system.
Yet, Mr. Limbaugh, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Fox are all scrupulously loyal to it.
Americans need to reconsider their love affair with the mass media. On the one side, the Republicans love to hate it. On the other, the Democrats have replaced their natural thought processes with the parroting of entire sentences from the mass media's dim wits. Both sides have lost the habit of thinking for themselves.
As well, Americans need to consider whether the two party system continues to work in their interests. Jefferson said that there needs to be a revolution every twenty years. The current two party system has been in place for 150 years. Over time, corrupt relationships have developed. The solution proposed about a century ago was to expand federal power. But that solution has failed. Partisanship has become much of the problem, not the solution. Unless, that is, you believe in "Socialism in One Country."
Neither party has pursued policies that would maximize America's well being. These are cutting by two thirds the book of regulation, the tax burden and the size of government.
The media, which is on Wall Street's payroll, have painted American politics as a partisan contest instead of a partisan collaboration. On the one side, MSNBC claims that Obama is America's savior. On the other side, Rush Limbaugh claims that the GOP is. The Democrats advocate national socialism while the Republicans advocate national socialism without welfare programs. There is much overlap, especially because the GOP has never seen a Democratic welfare program that they wanted to repeal. That is, the difference in advocacy is not matched by different action. Both parties advocate big government.
The media's emphasis on partisanship is one more in a long line of distraction tactics, a three card Monty trick. It is one more way that Wall Street's lackeys help divert Americans from the current system's failure.
To the extent that Americans have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the scam, they have suffered. The real hourly wage now is the same as it was in 1971. Forty years of stagnation thanks to the Socialists of Both Parties.
Somehow, neither Limbaugh nor MSNBC managed to "just say 'No!'" to Federal Reserve monetary policies that transfer large amounts of wealth to Wall Street and the recent trillion dollar bailout of the same Street. Put together, the monetary subsidies to the money center banking system serve no productive economic purpose unless you wish to claim that the money center financial institutions have been adept at choosing innovative investments to spur the American economy. But if you claim that you need to explain why they need multi-trillion dollar bailouts.
No industry has failed more dramatically, has demonstrated less competence, has proven itself less capable of serving any socially redeeming function than the money center banking institutions that have received trillions of dollars in subsidies. This is not an emotional assessment. No industry in history has ever depended on life support to that degree, has more egregiously sucked assets out of the productive sector of any economy than has the money center banking system.
Yet, Mr. Limbaugh, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Fox are all scrupulously loyal to it.
Americans need to reconsider their love affair with the mass media. On the one side, the Republicans love to hate it. On the other, the Democrats have replaced their natural thought processes with the parroting of entire sentences from the mass media's dim wits. Both sides have lost the habit of thinking for themselves.
As well, Americans need to consider whether the two party system continues to work in their interests. Jefferson said that there needs to be a revolution every twenty years. The current two party system has been in place for 150 years. Over time, corrupt relationships have developed. The solution proposed about a century ago was to expand federal power. But that solution has failed. Partisanship has become much of the problem, not the solution. Unless, that is, you believe in "Socialism in One Country."
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Dem-GOP Split is Preferable to a Bush-Like Palin
The recent election of Scott Brown has two sides. The good side is that it amounted to a rejection of the destructive Obama-Democratic health bill. The bad side is that Brown turned out to be a Progressive. For how long have the Republican rank and file been falling for this? The Democrats produce toxic policies, and in reaction the Republicans support politicians who are committed to maintaining the Democratic policies. This kind of self-destructive stupidity has become so habitual that now a supporter of government sponsored health care in Massachusetts is hailed as a savior.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Republicans Roar While Deficits Soar
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit (h/t Larwyn) notes that:
"The Democrats increased the national debt to $12 Trillion. And Democrats nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years with their failed Stimulus Plan. So now their going to give 'Son of Stimulus' a try...
"Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s historic trilion dollar Stimulus Package. Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s record budget.
And, once again, not one single Republican House members voted for “Son of Stimulus” the latest Democratic spending bill. Despite what some people say, there is a difference between the two parties."
Here's the picture Jim presents. It is ugly:
The Democrats are a joke. But the performance of the Republicans while out of office has repeatedly failed to match their performance while in office. George W. Bush also increased spending, and if you looked at the magnitudes in 2003-2008 they looked really bad. It is true the above picture is that much worse.
Jim is right that the Democrats are worse, but notice that on the graph the only positive years were during the Clinton administration. The Republicans can do much better. There needs to be a two-pronged strategy of taking responsibility for tax-and-loot white elephants as well as defeating the donkeys.
"The Democrats increased the national debt to $12 Trillion. And Democrats nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years with their failed Stimulus Plan. So now their going to give 'Son of Stimulus' a try...
"Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s historic trilion dollar Stimulus Package. Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s record budget.
And, once again, not one single Republican House members voted for “Son of Stimulus” the latest Democratic spending bill. Despite what some people say, there is a difference between the two parties."
Here's the picture Jim presents. It is ugly:
The Democrats are a joke. But the performance of the Republicans while out of office has repeatedly failed to match their performance while in office. George W. Bush also increased spending, and if you looked at the magnitudes in 2003-2008 they looked really bad. It is true the above picture is that much worse.
Jim is right that the Democrats are worse, but notice that on the graph the only positive years were during the Clinton administration. The Republicans can do much better. There needs to be a two-pronged strategy of taking responsibility for tax-and-loot white elephants as well as defeating the donkeys.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
De-Coopting the Freedom Movement
Liberty Republicans need to think about strategies to counteract the cooptation of the newly revived liberty movement that Rockefeller or Progressive Republicans will attempt. The Tea Party movement's explosion shows that there is potential for success for liberty Republicans. As well, the failure of Rockefeller Republicanism under the Bush administration might well keep big government Republicans from success if we liberty Republicans refuse to cooperate with them.
Because the Tea Party movement is composed of many fine and well meaning but inexperienced activists, it is susceptible to the same tactics that coopted the libertarian movement in 1980. If a Progressive Republican calls himself a "libertarian" or a "capitalist" and offers symbolic gestures, he can sufficiently cloak his commitment to the status quo. It doesn't help that many mistakenly call the pro-freedom movement "conservative", which leads to a tacit assumption that it is the status quo to which we are committed. Nuh uh. We are moderate, but we are radical in the sense of getting to the root. The current system is extremist. The status quo is not normalcy. We represent a return to normalcy and moderation, which means a lot less government and a lot more freedom than currently.
Recently, Forbes Magazine, for instance, has been calling its pro-Wall Street, statist positions like support for the Bush-Obama bailout "libertarian". This reflects the ancient tactic of calling totalitarianism justice. Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to do so 2,500 years ago. Some classicists dispute Popper's reading of Plato, but we can all agree that George Orwell was not the first to think of this idea, and Forbes will not be the last to apply it.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporters Dan Eggen and Perry Bacon, Jr. note that "the energized tea party movement...is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections". The Post article notes of the tea party movement:
"The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters." (bold added).
Websites such as Erick Erickson's RedState.com and Dick Armey's and Matt Kibbe's Freedomworks.org are aiming to engage in direct political competition via primaries with the Republican machines in various states. The article makes a crucial point:
"...political experts in both parties say it is unclear if the movement can become the kind of unified force that can win, and not just disrupt, elections... The tea party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state-level groups that have differing rules and goals and for the most part have not participated in big-money politics. Many of the groups have been torn apart by personal feuds in recent months; one major umbrella organization, the Tea Party Patriots, has filed a lawsuit against a founding board member who signed on with a rival, the Tea Party Express. "
The Republican Liberty Caucus ought to play an integrative role. We should be thinking about how to (a) win elections; (b) prevent the professional politicians from coopting liberty Republicanism in the interest of special interest pandering; and (c) cause them to defer to libertarians' aims.
The Post article quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as to the importance of "tempering our conservative approach with pragmatism." In other words, the kind of pragmatism that causes 50% of the national income invested in failed government programs that, obsessively, must not be terminated when they fail. Rather, they should be expanded when they fail. That is "moderation" in the eyes of the Washington Post and Senator Cornyn.
Given the large amounts of money that government provides to its favored interests, such as Wall Street, government employees, and the military-industrial complex, there will be a slick, well executed thrust to neutralize and manipulate the liberty movement to make it palatable. We need to devise intelligent tactics to resist it.
Because the Tea Party movement is composed of many fine and well meaning but inexperienced activists, it is susceptible to the same tactics that coopted the libertarian movement in 1980. If a Progressive Republican calls himself a "libertarian" or a "capitalist" and offers symbolic gestures, he can sufficiently cloak his commitment to the status quo. It doesn't help that many mistakenly call the pro-freedom movement "conservative", which leads to a tacit assumption that it is the status quo to which we are committed. Nuh uh. We are moderate, but we are radical in the sense of getting to the root. The current system is extremist. The status quo is not normalcy. We represent a return to normalcy and moderation, which means a lot less government and a lot more freedom than currently.
Recently, Forbes Magazine, for instance, has been calling its pro-Wall Street, statist positions like support for the Bush-Obama bailout "libertarian". This reflects the ancient tactic of calling totalitarianism justice. Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to do so 2,500 years ago. Some classicists dispute Popper's reading of Plato, but we can all agree that George Orwell was not the first to think of this idea, and Forbes will not be the last to apply it.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporters Dan Eggen and Perry Bacon, Jr. note that "the energized tea party movement...is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections". The Post article notes of the tea party movement:
"The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters." (bold added).
Websites such as Erick Erickson's RedState.com and Dick Armey's and Matt Kibbe's Freedomworks.org are aiming to engage in direct political competition via primaries with the Republican machines in various states. The article makes a crucial point:
"...political experts in both parties say it is unclear if the movement can become the kind of unified force that can win, and not just disrupt, elections... The tea party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state-level groups that have differing rules and goals and for the most part have not participated in big-money politics. Many of the groups have been torn apart by personal feuds in recent months; one major umbrella organization, the Tea Party Patriots, has filed a lawsuit against a founding board member who signed on with a rival, the Tea Party Express. "
The Republican Liberty Caucus ought to play an integrative role. We should be thinking about how to (a) win elections; (b) prevent the professional politicians from coopting liberty Republicanism in the interest of special interest pandering; and (c) cause them to defer to libertarians' aims.
The Post article quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as to the importance of "tempering our conservative approach with pragmatism." In other words, the kind of pragmatism that causes 50% of the national income invested in failed government programs that, obsessively, must not be terminated when they fail. Rather, they should be expanded when they fail. That is "moderation" in the eyes of the Washington Post and Senator Cornyn.
Given the large amounts of money that government provides to its favored interests, such as Wall Street, government employees, and the military-industrial complex, there will be a slick, well executed thrust to neutralize and manipulate the liberty movement to make it palatable. We need to devise intelligent tactics to resist it.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Glenda McGee Tells It Like It Is
Dear Editor,
In a small town it seems there is a personal nature to an election that is unfortunate and I think unwise.
When voting for your personal interests means not voting for people you are friendly with and have happily done town business with, an election challenge to incumbents can be misinterpreted as a personal affront. But is that wise?
When voting I disavow "feelings" and assess the best economic choice that serves my fiscal well being. I swear I would vote against my own son if I thought he was going to raise my taxes. "Sorry, kid."
The team challenging our Town of Olive incumbents is running on the Republican and Conservative lines this year.
They have made a commitment to a hiring freeze and a frozen budget. They will actually refuse the health care package and will not take a health care buyout.. Vince Barringer, running for supervisor, will take a ten thousand dollar pay cut as well. I really appreciate that.
Because the Republican / Conservative candidates are making a clear commitment to thrift at their own personal cost, I am convinced that this year I should vote the Republican Conservative ticket for the first time.
By the way, these candidates will require a town board majority to halt the growing town budget burden.
These are new and scary times. We New Yorkers will soon pay a huge government mandated obligation to make up the pension shortfall of the New York State employees. Spam and water for dinner anyone? The tax burden we face will be enormous and will threaten the home ownership of those who live on the fiscal edge. Federal spending on the "Stimulous Package" has lowered our dollar index value from 99 to 75 in the past eight months. Yikes, there goes the buying power of the American dollar.
When I vote for Vince Barringer and the rest of the Republican/Conservative ticket November 3rd., I will not be voting against anyone. I will be voting for my economic survival.
Sincerely,
Glenda Rose McGee
In a small town it seems there is a personal nature to an election that is unfortunate and I think unwise.
When voting for your personal interests means not voting for people you are friendly with and have happily done town business with, an election challenge to incumbents can be misinterpreted as a personal affront. But is that wise?
When voting I disavow "feelings" and assess the best economic choice that serves my fiscal well being. I swear I would vote against my own son if I thought he was going to raise my taxes. "Sorry, kid."
The team challenging our Town of Olive incumbents is running on the Republican and Conservative lines this year.
They have made a commitment to a hiring freeze and a frozen budget. They will actually refuse the health care package and will not take a health care buyout.. Vince Barringer, running for supervisor, will take a ten thousand dollar pay cut as well. I really appreciate that.
Because the Republican / Conservative candidates are making a clear commitment to thrift at their own personal cost, I am convinced that this year I should vote the Republican Conservative ticket for the first time.
By the way, these candidates will require a town board majority to halt the growing town budget burden.
These are new and scary times. We New Yorkers will soon pay a huge government mandated obligation to make up the pension shortfall of the New York State employees. Spam and water for dinner anyone? The tax burden we face will be enormous and will threaten the home ownership of those who live on the fiscal edge. Federal spending on the "Stimulous Package" has lowered our dollar index value from 99 to 75 in the past eight months. Yikes, there goes the buying power of the American dollar.
When I vote for Vince Barringer and the rest of the Republican/Conservative ticket November 3rd., I will not be voting against anyone. I will be voting for my economic survival.
Sincerely,
Glenda Rose McGee
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
You are Leaving Your Children the Husk: Politics, Debt Addiction and American Decline
I just had a long conversation with a friend in my neighborhood, Ulster County, New York. My friend owns a construction company that specializes in high-end residences. She advocates hyper-inflation and low taxes. The connection between her business and inflation is that debt is necessary to stimulate purchases of expensive houses. Monetary expansion is one and the same thing as debt expansion. The Federal Reserve Bank expands the money supply by increasing bank reserves (i.e., by purchasing government bonds from banks and depositing artificially created dollars in the banks). The banks lend out a multiple of the reserves, increasing the money supply. The new debt is used to build expensive houses, but the purchases of the materials for the new houses increases prices. Increasing prices spread through the economy as suppliers of suppliers face increased demand. The result is higher prices at the supermarket, and widespread wealth reduction for anyone who buys consumer goods. Inflation is thus a tax on all Americans in the interest of specific businesses and government that depend on debt. The biggest debtors are of course big, not small business. Examples are hedge funds and Wall Street. Government is the biggest debtor of all. Direct taxation "crowds out" spending on personal consumption in favor of the black hole of government waste. Inflation allocates consumption to the wealthy who can afford to borrow for expensive houses at the expense of those who buy at the supermarket check out.
The use of monetary expansion stimulates businesses that require debt at the expense of those that do not. Thus, expensive, big ticket items such as automobiles and houses are emphasized at the expense of smaller ticket items that you might purchase at a local fair, a supermarket or a boutique. Innovation of new technology that would not depend on debt for demand is replaced by real estate, investment and luxury markets. Returns to innovation become smaller in comparison with subsidized interests such as hedge funds. Income inequality results when merchandise that requires good credit is subsidized and risky innovation is discouraged. Things that people really need are not produced and instead things for which debt is available are produced. Inefficient businesses that do not reflect neutral demand but rather artificially induced demand are encouraged. Special interests accumulate that demand greater inflation. My friend, for instance, has invested in a construction company that depends on inflation. If inflation were to end, she would be ruined. Thus vested special interests that demand ever greater misallocation accumulate. Funds available for innovation diminish. The economy becomes rigidly committed to construction, real estate and automobiles, forgetting that but 15 decades ago suburbs and automobiles did not exist at all, and only came into being because of unpredictable, spontaneous innovation that social democracy has aimed to destroy since the days of Walter Weyl.
One of the effects of social democratic monetary expansion is to reduce demand for labor as debt for capital investment is made artificially available. Labor-saving machinery is made more readily available because interest rates are low. Therefore, demand for labor in capital intensive industries becomes weaker, resulting in stagnant wages. Also, expensive plant relocations to low wage nations are facilitated by low interest rates. Plant relocation is also a form of capital investment that artificially low interest rates stimulate.
There is considerable mal-investment in the American economy. My friend's construction firm is an example. Expensive house building is subsidized by low-wage consumers. The resources that could have gone into innovation and the creation of jobs to manufacture new products instead subsidizes expensive house building. There is only marginal demand for the expensive houses, so ever lower interest rates are needed to stimulate ever greater amounts of house building.
The same is true of Wall Street investments, hedge funds, and corporate takeovers. Printed money is made available to these special interests, who enjoy profits and a rising market as demand is initially stimulated through artificially low interest rates. The general public pays a tax to the wealthy via the Federal Reserve.
This system of allocation of wealth to wealthy interests is the product of the Democratic Party, specifically Woodrow Wilson, who oversaw establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who first abolished the gold standard in the early 1930s. However, the Republicans have also played an active role in establishing this system. President Richard M. Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush were aggressive inflationists.
Both parties, Democratic and Republican, are big government, interventionist parties. Both favor monetary creation to subsidize special interests. Both have favored Wall Street, commercial banking and corporate interests.
The problem with allocating wealth to special interests is that less productive investments are pursued at the expense of more productive. As less efficient firms accumulate, from Wall Street firms to real estate construction, waste becomes greater. The nation's wealth is extracted and new, innovative ways of using wealth are neglected because the rewards from innovation are diminished while the rewards of wealth extraction by banking, law and investment interests are expanded. Government work is subsidized while the work of factory supervisors and inventors is diminished. As wealth is squandered, the nation becomes poorer.
One of the ironic effects of this process is that the stimulated industries tend to be harmful to the environment. Thus, suburbs were created by Federal Reserve financed construction that far exceeded the demand that would have existed without subsidies from poorer Americans to suburban borrowers. The effect is enhanced use of the automobile, ever greater commutes and worse pollution.
As resources are squandered the technological model which utilizes them becomes exhausted. Innovation has been squelched so new technological advance does not occur. The result is national decline, stagnant or declining real hourly wages and declining opportunities for future generations.
The Federal Reserve Bank is impoverishing your children. But the interests who benefit are palpable, while the interests that are harmed, those who would benefit from unknown invention that would have occurred in the absence of the subsidies, cannot be identified. Public employees know who they are and form a powerful lobby. Beneficiaries of a yet-unknown cure for cancer or a new form of transportation are not known to themselves or anyone else.
This system is leaving future generations a husk. It is eating the corn without planting for the future. It is a reactionary, declining system.
The use of monetary expansion stimulates businesses that require debt at the expense of those that do not. Thus, expensive, big ticket items such as automobiles and houses are emphasized at the expense of smaller ticket items that you might purchase at a local fair, a supermarket or a boutique. Innovation of new technology that would not depend on debt for demand is replaced by real estate, investment and luxury markets. Returns to innovation become smaller in comparison with subsidized interests such as hedge funds. Income inequality results when merchandise that requires good credit is subsidized and risky innovation is discouraged. Things that people really need are not produced and instead things for which debt is available are produced. Inefficient businesses that do not reflect neutral demand but rather artificially induced demand are encouraged. Special interests accumulate that demand greater inflation. My friend, for instance, has invested in a construction company that depends on inflation. If inflation were to end, she would be ruined. Thus vested special interests that demand ever greater misallocation accumulate. Funds available for innovation diminish. The economy becomes rigidly committed to construction, real estate and automobiles, forgetting that but 15 decades ago suburbs and automobiles did not exist at all, and only came into being because of unpredictable, spontaneous innovation that social democracy has aimed to destroy since the days of Walter Weyl.
One of the effects of social democratic monetary expansion is to reduce demand for labor as debt for capital investment is made artificially available. Labor-saving machinery is made more readily available because interest rates are low. Therefore, demand for labor in capital intensive industries becomes weaker, resulting in stagnant wages. Also, expensive plant relocations to low wage nations are facilitated by low interest rates. Plant relocation is also a form of capital investment that artificially low interest rates stimulate.
There is considerable mal-investment in the American economy. My friend's construction firm is an example. Expensive house building is subsidized by low-wage consumers. The resources that could have gone into innovation and the creation of jobs to manufacture new products instead subsidizes expensive house building. There is only marginal demand for the expensive houses, so ever lower interest rates are needed to stimulate ever greater amounts of house building.
The same is true of Wall Street investments, hedge funds, and corporate takeovers. Printed money is made available to these special interests, who enjoy profits and a rising market as demand is initially stimulated through artificially low interest rates. The general public pays a tax to the wealthy via the Federal Reserve.
This system of allocation of wealth to wealthy interests is the product of the Democratic Party, specifically Woodrow Wilson, who oversaw establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who first abolished the gold standard in the early 1930s. However, the Republicans have also played an active role in establishing this system. President Richard M. Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush were aggressive inflationists.
Both parties, Democratic and Republican, are big government, interventionist parties. Both favor monetary creation to subsidize special interests. Both have favored Wall Street, commercial banking and corporate interests.
The problem with allocating wealth to special interests is that less productive investments are pursued at the expense of more productive. As less efficient firms accumulate, from Wall Street firms to real estate construction, waste becomes greater. The nation's wealth is extracted and new, innovative ways of using wealth are neglected because the rewards from innovation are diminished while the rewards of wealth extraction by banking, law and investment interests are expanded. Government work is subsidized while the work of factory supervisors and inventors is diminished. As wealth is squandered, the nation becomes poorer.
One of the ironic effects of this process is that the stimulated industries tend to be harmful to the environment. Thus, suburbs were created by Federal Reserve financed construction that far exceeded the demand that would have existed without subsidies from poorer Americans to suburban borrowers. The effect is enhanced use of the automobile, ever greater commutes and worse pollution.
As resources are squandered the technological model which utilizes them becomes exhausted. Innovation has been squelched so new technological advance does not occur. The result is national decline, stagnant or declining real hourly wages and declining opportunities for future generations.
The Federal Reserve Bank is impoverishing your children. But the interests who benefit are palpable, while the interests that are harmed, those who would benefit from unknown invention that would have occurred in the absence of the subsidies, cannot be identified. Public employees know who they are and form a powerful lobby. Beneficiaries of a yet-unknown cure for cancer or a new form of transportation are not known to themselves or anyone else.
This system is leaving future generations a husk. It is eating the corn without planting for the future. It is a reactionary, declining system.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Democrats' and Republicans' Impoverishment Plans
The Democrats have this impoverishment plan:
1. Teach children that production of wealth is immoral while taxation is moral.
2. Tax output of productive Americans and redistribute it to the wealthy-–George Soros, Long Term Capital Management, Bear Stearns, the Washington nomenclatura, university professors and Keynesian economists.
3. Tell the poor that you are acting in their interest because of your “conscience”. Develop a social security and medicare plan that redistributes wealth inter-generationally from low wage earner to low wage earner. When it fails, institute a rationing scheme, call it “national health insurance” and raise the social security retirement age.
4. Convince Americans that receiving $180,000 in social security benefits for $200,000 in out-of-pocket contributions is a good deal. Convince Americans that health care in Cuba at $250 per year is better than in America.
5. Set interest rates at zero so that middle income people cannot save and induce them to invest in the stock market at inflated prices. Further ensure that middle income people cannot save by taxing incomes, property, inheritance, capital gains and sales.
6. Allocate freshly printed money (created to reduce interest rates to zero) to unproductive Wall Street, banking, hedge fund and corporate executives, insuring that wage earners will pay higher prices for milk while hedge fund managers buy $30 million houses in Greenwich, Connecticut and the Dakotas. Facilitate this process through subsidization of the stock and real estate markets, repeatedly inducing long term “sucker rallies”.
7. Convince Americans that taxation of 50% of your income is too little for the same level of services that used to be provided at 10% of your income.
8. Increase tax rates most on innovative and harder working Americans and transfer their money to Democratic contributors.
But the Republicans also have an impoverishment plan.
1. Read and parrot all Democratic Party information sources such as the New York Times and CNN.
2. Never repeal the Democrats’ impoverishment plan.
3. Do not educate Americans as to the effects of the Democrats’ impoverishment plan.
4. When elected, spend more than Democrats.
5. Declare a national emergency and emphasize the need to transfer even more printed money to unproductive, wealthy interests six weeks before the presidential election.
1. Teach children that production of wealth is immoral while taxation is moral.
2. Tax output of productive Americans and redistribute it to the wealthy-–George Soros, Long Term Capital Management, Bear Stearns, the Washington nomenclatura, university professors and Keynesian economists.
3. Tell the poor that you are acting in their interest because of your “conscience”. Develop a social security and medicare plan that redistributes wealth inter-generationally from low wage earner to low wage earner. When it fails, institute a rationing scheme, call it “national health insurance” and raise the social security retirement age.
4. Convince Americans that receiving $180,000 in social security benefits for $200,000 in out-of-pocket contributions is a good deal. Convince Americans that health care in Cuba at $250 per year is better than in America.
5. Set interest rates at zero so that middle income people cannot save and induce them to invest in the stock market at inflated prices. Further ensure that middle income people cannot save by taxing incomes, property, inheritance, capital gains and sales.
6. Allocate freshly printed money (created to reduce interest rates to zero) to unproductive Wall Street, banking, hedge fund and corporate executives, insuring that wage earners will pay higher prices for milk while hedge fund managers buy $30 million houses in Greenwich, Connecticut and the Dakotas. Facilitate this process through subsidization of the stock and real estate markets, repeatedly inducing long term “sucker rallies”.
7. Convince Americans that taxation of 50% of your income is too little for the same level of services that used to be provided at 10% of your income.
8. Increase tax rates most on innovative and harder working Americans and transfer their money to Democratic contributors.
But the Republicans also have an impoverishment plan.
1. Read and parrot all Democratic Party information sources such as the New York Times and CNN.
2. Never repeal the Democrats’ impoverishment plan.
3. Do not educate Americans as to the effects of the Democrats’ impoverishment plan.
4. When elected, spend more than Democrats.
5. Declare a national emergency and emphasize the need to transfer even more printed money to unproductive, wealthy interests six weeks before the presidential election.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Florida Repubs Call Pickpocket Barack Names
Nancy Razik just forwarded this from Ben Smith's blog. Apparently, Florida Republicans have been questioning Mr. Obama's citizenship:
>"Yesterday, State Senator Rhonda Storms refused to acknowledge the fact that President Obama is the President during a hearing in the State Senate. Senator Storms repeatedly called Obama, "Senator Obama," "Candidate Obama," then she called him "The Messiah." And when the Democrats objected, the Republican Committee Chairman just got mad."
The Republicans should keep up the good work.
>"Yesterday, State Senator Rhonda Storms refused to acknowledge the fact that President Obama is the President during a hearing in the State Senate. Senator Storms repeatedly called Obama, "Senator Obama," "Candidate Obama," then she called him "The Messiah." And when the Democrats objected, the Republican Committee Chairman just got mad."
The Republicans should keep up the good work.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Is The Future of The Republican Party A New World Order?
I received the following e-mail from "Ms. J. Kulig".
>Please pass this on to your contact list. I have started a NEW FORUM on my web site www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com to elicit any information anyone has regarding a New World Order. Much research is available. Let's put it in one place so people can judge for themselves if my observations and the observations of others, more learned than myself, have any merit.
>Dear Readers,
>First, let me state that I am a registered Repulican who voted for John McCain in this past election. I voted Republican because my values and beliefs are consistent with the 2008 RNC platformand because Barack Obama with too many Anti-American ties and a platform, which I believed, supported a Socialist agenda.
>Months before the election, I was disturbed to find out that Barack Obama might not even meet the "natural born" eligibility requirements to be elected to POTUS. The more I read, the more research that I conducted, the more I became convinced that Obama's rise to superstardom was an orchestrated effort that would have to involve both parties, high ranking government officials and the media. Why wasn't anyone standing up to avoid the impending constitutional crisis?
>To follow the slew of lawsuits that were being originated surrounding both Obama's and McCain's eligibility issues, (but particularly Obama's because McCain's eligibility issue, I thought had been addressed) I started a social networking site called WeThePeopleUSA.
>My site grew almost overnight, at a rate of about 30-50 members a day and now totals around 500 members. Unfortunately, after lawsuit after lawsuit was dismissed regarding Obama's presidential eligibilty, I noticed a rapid decline in member participation and new members joining the site.
>Fortunately, I never stopped searching for the truth, not just about Obama, but about the Republican Party...My Party. I wanted to know why, with so many questions concerning Obama's eligibilty, hadn't ANY high profile Republicans stepped up to voice their concern? Why had the "so-called" conservative media, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc. failed to report on this issue?
>Today, I am pretty much an expert on the Obama eligibility question and I have many links on my site that link to other sites that are also reporting this issue. However, the silence of the Republican Party and historical support that John McCain has given on behalf of illegal immigrants, NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Policy has caused me to ask more questions that I wasn't sure that I really wanted the answer to.
>Could McCain's loss to Obama have been part of the "master plan?" If so, how was it orchestrated and who were the players. Surely, the Republican's, our small government, capitalism loving party could not be behind such a betrayal. There must be some other explaination. This could not happen in America. What about our Supreme Court and George Bush's appointee for Chief Justice, John Roberts, surely, he would uphold the Constitution?
>Unfortunately, I found out that it IS happening, and that It has been happening for a very long time. I have concluded that the Republican Party, as it stands today, is a party that secretly supports a New World Order.
>Everything that is associated with Obama, including John McCain, his presidential opponent, and our Current and Former Republican Presidents is connected to this New World Order.
>The New World Order is a borderless society ruled by a central banking system which uses one currency in which individual rights are no longer protected and one government has total control. Many of the "elites" have recognized that a New World Order is needed and necessary. click here for quotes.
>From a False Credit Crisis to the Wars that have been started to create the New World Order, chaos has been created and terrorism used as an imminent danger, like 9/11 to scare people into giving up their constitutional rights.
>I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not wear a tin-foil hat. I am an average average American, who, for most of my life, like many other Americans has been too busy trying to work and make a living and raise a family to seek out the truth on my own.
>I don't claim to have found out the complete "truth" only a list of questions, that yet to have been unanswered. Until we can answer these questions and get to the real truth, we can not determine how to move forward as a Party or even what the party should look like.
>How many "elites" in the Republican party today are connected to the New World Order? We MUST determine this before we can Stand United and Rebuild the Party.
>Your thoughts and comments are encouraged. Please note: I have completed extensive research on both Obama and McCain's citizenship, as well as, the NWO, but I did not want to overload the reader here. A few links are provided for your reference, which link to more material you can read on your own to decide for yourself if ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS have truly been addressed by your party.
>Thank you.
>Please pass this on to your contact list. I have started a NEW FORUM on my web site www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com to elicit any information anyone has regarding a New World Order. Much research is available. Let's put it in one place so people can judge for themselves if my observations and the observations of others, more learned than myself, have any merit.
>Dear Readers,
>First, let me state that I am a registered Repulican who voted for John McCain in this past election. I voted Republican because my values and beliefs are consistent with the 2008 RNC platformand because Barack Obama with too many Anti-American ties and a platform, which I believed, supported a Socialist agenda.
>Months before the election, I was disturbed to find out that Barack Obama might not even meet the "natural born" eligibility requirements to be elected to POTUS. The more I read, the more research that I conducted, the more I became convinced that Obama's rise to superstardom was an orchestrated effort that would have to involve both parties, high ranking government officials and the media. Why wasn't anyone standing up to avoid the impending constitutional crisis?
>To follow the slew of lawsuits that were being originated surrounding both Obama's and McCain's eligibility issues, (but particularly Obama's because McCain's eligibility issue, I thought had been addressed) I started a social networking site called WeThePeopleUSA.
>My site grew almost overnight, at a rate of about 30-50 members a day and now totals around 500 members. Unfortunately, after lawsuit after lawsuit was dismissed regarding Obama's presidential eligibilty, I noticed a rapid decline in member participation and new members joining the site.
>Fortunately, I never stopped searching for the truth, not just about Obama, but about the Republican Party...My Party. I wanted to know why, with so many questions concerning Obama's eligibilty, hadn't ANY high profile Republicans stepped up to voice their concern? Why had the "so-called" conservative media, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc. failed to report on this issue?
>Today, I am pretty much an expert on the Obama eligibility question and I have many links on my site that link to other sites that are also reporting this issue. However, the silence of the Republican Party and historical support that John McCain has given on behalf of illegal immigrants, NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Policy has caused me to ask more questions that I wasn't sure that I really wanted the answer to.
>Could McCain's loss to Obama have been part of the "master plan?" If so, how was it orchestrated and who were the players. Surely, the Republican's, our small government, capitalism loving party could not be behind such a betrayal. There must be some other explaination. This could not happen in America. What about our Supreme Court and George Bush's appointee for Chief Justice, John Roberts, surely, he would uphold the Constitution?
>Unfortunately, I found out that it IS happening, and that It has been happening for a very long time. I have concluded that the Republican Party, as it stands today, is a party that secretly supports a New World Order.
>Everything that is associated with Obama, including John McCain, his presidential opponent, and our Current and Former Republican Presidents is connected to this New World Order.
>The New World Order is a borderless society ruled by a central banking system which uses one currency in which individual rights are no longer protected and one government has total control. Many of the "elites" have recognized that a New World Order is needed and necessary. click here for quotes.
>From a False Credit Crisis to the Wars that have been started to create the New World Order, chaos has been created and terrorism used as an imminent danger, like 9/11 to scare people into giving up their constitutional rights.
>I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not wear a tin-foil hat. I am an average average American, who, for most of my life, like many other Americans has been too busy trying to work and make a living and raise a family to seek out the truth on my own.
>I don't claim to have found out the complete "truth" only a list of questions, that yet to have been unanswered. Until we can answer these questions and get to the real truth, we can not determine how to move forward as a Party or even what the party should look like.
>How many "elites" in the Republican party today are connected to the New World Order? We MUST determine this before we can Stand United and Rebuild the Party.
>Your thoughts and comments are encouraged. Please note: I have completed extensive research on both Obama and McCain's citizenship, as well as, the NWO, but I did not want to overload the reader here. A few links are provided for your reference, which link to more material you can read on your own to decide for yourself if ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS have truly been addressed by your party.
>Thank you.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Department Of Energy Is the Funniest Joke Ever
A good illustration of the failure of big government solutions is the Department of Energy. I received the following e-mail from Contrairimairi. Two questions that leap to mind: (1) Why do we still have a Department of Energy 28 years after the election of Ronald Reagen and (2) Might this perpetuation of Progressive approaches under successive Republican administrations have something to do with the Republicans' current political fortunes?
Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever ! ON US
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given
For the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during
The Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?
Didn't think so.
Bottom line . . We've spent several hundred billion
Dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not
One person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody
Thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO
'LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL'.
HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT,.......HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR
THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY
HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY:
'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn
The Banking system over to them?.............. 'God Help us'.
Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever ! ON US
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given
For the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during
The Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?
Didn't think so.
Bottom line . . We've spent several hundred billion
Dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not
One person who reads this can remember.
Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody
Thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO
'LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL'.
HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT,.......HUH?
AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR
THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY
HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY:
'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn
The Banking system over to them?.............. 'God Help us'.
Monday, September 15, 2008
New York Huckabee Supporters Helping Obama Slide
Pinni is my former student who also happens to be the head of the Federalist Society at Cardozo Law School in New York. Pinni was one of my very few best students in 17 years of teaching, and I pleased to say that he is doing well in law school. He just forwarded a fascinating e-mail from Myers Mermel, former New York State chair of New Yorkers for Huckabee. Mermel points out that McCain/Palin are within 4.2% of Obama. Wow, what a difference a few weeks can make! Mermel is now head of the McCain campaign's grassroots efforts. Mermel is encouraging New Yorkers to go to www.nymccain.com and sign up for county MEETUPS. Yay!
>Former Huckabee Supporters:
I am sure you have been as encouraged by Gov. Sarah Palin as I have. Her agenda and values are very much like Gov Huckabee's.
The Republican Presidential team of McCain/Palin is now addressing the concerns that we raised during the primaries.
I am writing to ask your help. I have become a part of the McCain campaign and am in charge of our grassroots efforts across New York State. Basically I am in charge of getting out the vote
I have remarkable news. Today Siena released a poll showing Obama was only 4.2% points ahead of McCain in New York State. This lead has been narrowed since June when Obama led by 18 points.
The McCain/Palin ticket is gaining in the polls by gathering the vast support of many Republicans and Democrats across New York State. But we are not there yet. However, we are in the home stretch.
I want to ask you to go back into the fields of politics one more time. We all need your help in order to turn New York into the biggest surprise victory in decades.
Please go to www.nymccain.com and sign up within your county. I would like you to go to your county and join the local MEETUP group. If there is not a MEETUP group in your county, please form one.
We are trying to get all MEETUP groups to gather around the first debate which is September 26th. From there we will start with targeted get-out-the-vote efforts.
Please consider helping; a lot is at stake. Please let me see you at MEETUP.
For such a time as this,
Myers Mermel
Former Huckabee NY State Chair
McCain/Palin Chair Grassroots NY State
myers.mermel@nymccain.com
>Former Huckabee Supporters:
I am sure you have been as encouraged by Gov. Sarah Palin as I have. Her agenda and values are very much like Gov Huckabee's.
The Republican Presidential team of McCain/Palin is now addressing the concerns that we raised during the primaries.
I am writing to ask your help. I have become a part of the McCain campaign and am in charge of our grassroots efforts across New York State. Basically I am in charge of getting out the vote
I have remarkable news. Today Siena released a poll showing Obama was only 4.2% points ahead of McCain in New York State. This lead has been narrowed since June when Obama led by 18 points.
The McCain/Palin ticket is gaining in the polls by gathering the vast support of many Republicans and Democrats across New York State. But we are not there yet. However, we are in the home stretch.
I want to ask you to go back into the fields of politics one more time. We all need your help in order to turn New York into the biggest surprise victory in decades.
Please go to www.nymccain.com and sign up within your county. I would like you to go to your county and join the local MEETUP group. If there is not a MEETUP group in your county, please form one.
We are trying to get all MEETUP groups to gather around the first debate which is September 26th. From there we will start with targeted get-out-the-vote efforts.
Please consider helping; a lot is at stake. Please let me see you at MEETUP.
For such a time as this,
Myers Mermel
Former Huckabee NY State Chair
McCain/Palin Chair Grassroots NY State
myers.mermel@nymccain.com
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Obama Investigation Petition Breaks 3,265 Signatures
The petition I circulated on Thursday now has3,266 signatures. There is still time to sign it at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/
It reads:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/
It reads:
The signers of this petition request the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman, to take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be President of the United States. Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate; that the FEC not monitor his campaign finances during the primary or election; that votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states' boards of elections not be recorded and displayed by the FEC; and that Mr. Obama be considered in violation of 2 USC 437g for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Conservative Bolters Should Listen to Jerry Molen
Jeremy E. Sarber and Friends (h/t Contrairimairi) has posted an essay by Jerry Molen, who notes:
"Most people aren’t even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years. It wasn’t until 1994 when the so called Gingrich Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people realize that it was the Dem’s that created the failed policies of the many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our eyes. Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all this."
Jerry notes a paradox:
"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years….and they are still poor."
No kidding. The fact is, almost everyone is poorer because of the Progressive(Republican)/social democrat (Democratic) alliance.
Jerry has a few predictions about what Barack Hussein Obama would do as president:
1. Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2. The phrase “In God We Trust” will be removed from all currency.
3. He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4. Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5. Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6. The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7. Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8. The borders will be ‘basically open’ to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America.
9. Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S.
10. The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.
"Most people aren’t even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years. It wasn’t until 1994 when the so called Gingrich Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people realize that it was the Dem’s that created the failed policies of the many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our eyes. Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all this."
Jerry notes a paradox:
"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years….and they are still poor."
No kidding. The fact is, almost everyone is poorer because of the Progressive(Republican)/social democrat (Democratic) alliance.
Jerry has a few predictions about what Barack Hussein Obama would do as president:
1. Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2. The phrase “In God We Trust” will be removed from all currency.
3. He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4. Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5. Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6. The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7. Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8. The borders will be ‘basically open’ to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America.
9. Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S.
10. The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.
McCain Campaign Needs to Stategize Fraud Prevention
Has the McCain campaign begun making preparations to preempt election day fraud? I was just on the phone with a lobbyist in Washington, DC who had been involved in the Democratic Texas Caucus, and she alleged that the Obama campaign engaged in intimidation against elderly women amounting to fraud. She also stated that these allegations have trailed Mr. Obama's campaigns beginning with his first race in Chicago, Illinois. Illinois has long been a state accused of being lax on fraud, going at least as far back as the 1960 presidential election. In a close race like the 2008 race, cheating could easily be the determinative factor. As well, Democrats continue to accuse Republicans of fraud in 2000, and there is no more likely thief than the man who believes that something has been stolen from him.
It is imperative that the McCain campaign begin thinking about and developing control procedures such as training an army of observers for election day. Rationally planned steps now could be the most important campaign strategy. As Sun Tzu said, wars are won before they're fought, and know your opponent. Barack Obama is an opponent capable of election fraud.
It is imperative that the McCain campaign begin thinking about and developing control procedures such as training an army of observers for election day. Rationally planned steps now could be the most important campaign strategy. As Sun Tzu said, wars are won before they're fought, and know your opponent. Barack Obama is an opponent capable of election fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
